funding validation. a thematic report for the 2016 …luxembourg: publications office of the...

OF NON-FORMALAND INFORMAL LEARNING

VALIDATION

Funding validation

A thematic report for the 2016 updateto the European inventory on validationof non-formal and informal learning

This thematic report presents an overview of funding sources for validation of non-formal and informal learning and discusses associated issues such as sustainability and accessibility. It is based on data collected for the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning since 2007, and telephone interviews carried out to prepare four detailed case-study examples. The report identifies five different funding sources used by countries across Europe: dedicated public funding from national sources; public funding but not specifically allocated to validation; EU and project funding; mix of public and private sector funding; and fees charged to individual learners. For each of these, it sets out a list of strengths/enablers and barriers/weak-nesses. The report concludes with a list of key learning points and suggests that there is scope to look into the issue of valida-tion funding in more detail.

Funding validation A thematic report for the 2016 updateto the European inventory on validationof non-formal and informal learning

ENEN

Europe 123, 570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea), GREECE

PO Box 22427, 551 02 Thessaloniki, GREECE

Tel. +30 2310490111, Fax +30 2310490020, E-mail: [email protected]

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

4146 EN – TI-01-16-652-EN-N – doi:10.2801/012471

ISBN: 978-92-896-2198-4

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016


Please cite this publication as:Cedefop; European Commission; ICF (2016). Funding validation. A thematic report for the 2016 update to the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

ISBN: 978-92-896-2198-4doi:10.2801/012471

Copyright © European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), 2016All rights reserved.

Designed by [email protected] Printed in the European Union

The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is the European Union's

reference centre for vocational education and training. We provide information on and analyses of vocational

education and training systems, policies, research and practice.Cedefop was established in 1975

by Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75.

Europe 123, 570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea), GREECEPO Box 22427, 551 02 Thessaloniki, GREECE

Tel. +30 2310490111, Fax +30 2310490020E-mail: [email protected]

www.cedefop.europa.eu

Joachim James Calleja, Director Micheline Scheys, Chair of the Governing Board

Foreword

There is an overwhelming consensus on the importance of making visible theknowledge, skills and competences gained through life and work experience.To value what they have learned, people should be able to demonstrate whatthey have learned in all settings in life and to use this in their career and forfurther education and training.

This is why validation of non-formal and informal learning can make anessential contribution to the EU ambition of achieving smart, sustainable andinclusive growth, as set by the Europe 2020 strategy. Its impact can besignificant in better matching of skills and labour demand, promotingtransferability of skills between companies and sectors and supporting mobilityacross the European labour market. It can also contribute to fighting socialexclusion by providing a way for early school leavers, unemployed individualsand other groups at risk, particularly low-skilled adults, to improve theiremployability.

This is one of a series of four thematic reports prepared within theframework of the 2016 update to the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning. The inventory, together with the Europeanguidelines, is a major tool supporting the implementation of the 2012recommendation on validation that calls on Member States to establish, by2018, validation arrangements allowing individuals to identify, document,assess and certify their competences to obtain a qualification (or parts of it).

Foreword 5

The thematic reports take a closer look at specific aspects that areparticularly relevant for the development of validation arrangements in Europe.They have contributed to the development of the country report updates,which will be available at Cedefop’s webpage at the end of 2016. The reportstreat the following themes:• validation in the care and youth work sectors: this looks into how validation

arrangements link to specific sectors of care and youth work;• monitoring validation: this provides an overview of the way the use of

validation of non-formal and informal learning is recorded across Europe;• funding validation: this presents an overview of funding sources for

validation of non-formal and informal learning and discusses associatedissues such as sustainability and accessibility of validation arrangements;

• validation and open educational resources (OER): this focuses on validationof learning acquired through OER, for instance through participation inmassive open online courses.

The thematic reports are a source of information to support dialoguebetween the different stakeholders in developing and implementing validationin Europe. Our key objective is to assist Member States in thinking Europeanbut acting locally, so that more learners and workers provide new skills tosupport competitiveness.

Joachim James Calleja Detlef EckertCedefop Director Director for Skills, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Acknowledgements

This thematic report was written by Jo Hawley-Woodall and reviewed by Manuel Souto-Otero (ICFInternational). It was also reviewed by the steeringcommittee set up by the European Commission tooversee work on the update of the Europeaninventory on validation of non-formal and informallearning 2016: the Commission (Godelieve van denBrande, Koen Nomden, Martina Ní Cheallaigh,Corinna Liersch and Anna Nikowska), Cedefop(Jens Bjornavold, Hanne Christensen and ErnestoVillalba) and the ETF (Anna Kahlson).

Work was carried out under Cedefop’s servicecontract No 2014-0182/AO/ECVL/JB-EVGAR/ 2016-Validation-Inventory/014/14.

Table of contents

Foreword 4Acknowledgements 6

1. Introduction 10

2. Funding sources 122.1. Countries with dedicated public funding for validation

from national sources 132.1.1. Funding distribution 132.1.2. Level of funding 182.1.3. Strengths and weaknesses 24

2.2. Countries with public funding not specifically for validation 242.2.1. Possible issues resulting from lack of earmarked

funding 252.2.2. Additional costs to providers wishing to offer

validation 272.2.3. Strengths and weaknesses 28

2.3. EU and project funding 282.3.1. EU funding for the provision of (mainstream)

validation 292.3.2. EU funding for related developments 322.3.3. EU funding for (pilot) projects 322.3.4. EU and project funding time limitations 332.3.5. Strengths and weaknesses 39

2.4. Countries mixing public and private sector funding 402.4.1. Use of funds financed through employer

contributions 402.4.2. Private sector stakeholders with some validation

responsibility 412.4.3. Validation as a commercial activity 412.4.4. Private sector projects 452.4.5. Employer funding of employees 452.4.6. Strengths and weaknesses 46

2.5. Fees charged to individual learners 472.5.1. Significant fees 482.5.2. Regulations/guidelines on fees 502.5.3. Strengths and weaknesses 53

3. Changes in funding 2007-14 54

4. Conclusions 564.1. Main conclusions 564.2. Recommendations 57

List of abbreviations 59References 60

Annex: Overview of funding sources 63

Funding validation. A thematic report for the 2016 update to the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning8

List of tables, boxes and case studies

Tables1. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of dedicated

public funding for validation, from national sources 242. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of public

funding not specifically allocated to validation 283. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of EU

and project funding 394. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of a mix

of public and private sector funding 465. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of fees

charged to individual learners 53

A1. Funding sources for validation 63

Boxes1. The importance of providing clear information on funding

for validation 142. Rockwool, Netherlands 463. Varying fees: Belgium-Flanders 484. Regulations setting the fees for validation: Latvia 515. Variations in fees for individuals: England (HE sector) 52

Case studies1. Iceland 192. Portugal 303. Estonia 344. The Netherlands 42

Table of contents 9

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This is one of a series of four thematic reports prepared for the 2016 updateto the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning(the inventory). It presents an overview of funding sources for validation(Chapter 2) and discusses associated issues such as sustainability andaccessibility. Some country examples are highlighted in boxes and four largercase studies are also presented. These examples offer interesting lessons forothers: they are not necessarily put forward as examples of good practice butto show how financing has been implemented. Chapter 3 of the reportpresents a brief overview of changes in funding identified during 2007-14. Thereport concludes with a list of key points.

Data on validation funding are limited. To compile a data resource for thisthematic report, inventory country experts were asked to respond to fivequestions on funding:(a) what are (were) the different sources of funding for validation and what is

(was) the balance between different sources in your country;(b) what are the consequences of different structures of public funding for

validation at national/regional level;(c) what main types of use of (European Union) project-based funding are

being made;(d) do there seem to be any links between the costs of validation/funding

arrangements and the types of approaches used in the implementation ofvalidation;

(e) what have been the most important developments in validation fundingsince 2014 in your country?The main focus of responses provided by the country experts was sources

of funding (including project funding), and, where information was available,on the amount of funding allocated to validation. Few country experts wereable to put forward responses to the analytical questions on if, or how, thefunding structures in place affect approaches chosen to deliver validation andthe way in which it is delivered. This is mainly due to the lack of reporting onthis issue at national (and international) level.

Responses to the above questions were based on the informationprovided in previous versions of the inventory (2007, 2010 and 2014), countryexperts’ wider knowledge of validation in their country, and relevant literature.A small number of telephone interviews were also carried out by the author ofthis report, to prepare the detailed country examples.

The report identifies five different funding sources used by countriesacross Europe: dedicated public funding from national sources; public fundingbut not specifically allocated to validation; EU and project funding; mix of publicand private sector funding; and fees charged to individual learners. Validationis often specific to different sectors of education within countries so, wherepossible (where it is clear from the country data), we have tried to reflect thisin the report by stating which sector is referred to when mentioning a country(validation outside education is not covered in this report, as examples werenot identified in the country data). Future reviews of funding by sector withineach country could lead to more precise typology of sources and more in-depth discussion of associated issues.

Introduction 11

CHAPTER 2

Funding sources

We have identified five different funding sources for validation of non-formaland informal learning. These do not necessarily apply to countries as a whole,but to sectors of education within countries. For example, often the highereducation (HE) sector has a specific funding source, due to the autonomousnature of HE institutions. Drivers and challenges associated with funding varyby sector in question. There is also some overlap across the funding sources;they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, countries which provide(dedicated) national funding may also rely on European funding as asignificant funding source, for example if European and national funding arecombined as is the case for the European Social Fund (ESF).

The funding sources identified are:(a) dedicated public funding from national sources;(b) public funding but not specifically allocated to validation;(c) EU and project funding;(d) mix of public and private sector funding;(e) fees charged to individual learners.

We provide country examples to illustrate how each type of source is usedin practice. This includes small country examples in boxes, based on the dataprovided by inventory country experts, and four detailed country case studyexamples. The latter are prepared from data provided by the country expertsplus telephone interviews and email correspondence with one to two contactsper country. The four detailed examples are:(a) Iceland, where national earmarked funding is allocated to validation

providers on a project basis;(b) Estonia, where ESF funding was used to support the development phase

of validation activities in the HE and vocational education and training(VET) sectors, but has now come to an end, raising questions about thesustainability of the activities in the longer term;

(c) Portugal, where ESF funding is used to pay for the delivery of validationrelating to general education and initial VET (1) but a nationally funded

(1) ESF funding is not used for validation relating to higher education as students pay for the validationprocesses in these institutions.

institution undertakes central direction and monitoring activities;(d) the Netherlands, where validation is seen as a commercial activity and is

funded through fees paid by individuals or private sector entities.The thematic report raises issues of sustainability of the sources and

whether the funding approaches act as a (dis)incentive to providers orlearners. These discussion points are summarised in the conclusions, whichpoint to areas for further research. The annex has an overview of fundingschemes in the different countries.

2.1. Countries with dedicated public funding forvalidation from national sources

Dedicated public funding for validation in one or more sectors of education(notably in VET) can be found in around a third of the countries covered bythe inventory, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, England (initialvocational education and training, IVET), Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein (VET),Luxembourg (IVET), Norway (lower and upper secondary education) Portugal(general education and VET), Sweden, Switzerland (upper secondary VET)and Wales (HE). This funding comes from national sources (sometimescombined with EU sources). A few countries (Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) referred to the use ofregional public funding as well, for instance Germany, concerning access toHE, where universities are funded predominantly by the Länder. In Belgium,there is no national funding for validation; it always comes from the regions.The focus of this section is national funding, because the country data referredmainly to national sources.

2.1.1. Funding distribution2.1.1.1. Funding distributed proportionallyIn Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), regional public funding for validation isdistributed to individual providers based on the number of validation sessionscarried out/the number of individuals undergoing validation. In Belgium-

CHAPTER 2Funding sources 13

Wallonia, the ‘consortium for validation’ manages government fundingdedicated to validation of competences sessions (2) (in the continuingvocational education and training (CVET) sector). Each year the consortiumreceives a subsidy from the government, which it then distributes to validationcentres based on the number of validation sessions carried out. Similarly, inBelgium-Flanders, assessment centres offering the certificate for vocationalexperience are given a one-off start-up reimbursement of EUR 15 000 andthen receive EUR 5 000 for each additional certificate that they issue.

Other countries which allocate funding according to the number ofvalidations carried out include Denmark and England. In England, the SkillsFunding Agency sets out rules on when providers can/cannot claim fundingfor learners who have benefited from validation (recognition of prior learning(3)). The rules were found to be confusing for learning providers, highlightingthe importance of making providers aware of such rules and providing clearinformation on how they work, as described in Box 1.

Box 1. The importance of providing clear information on funding forvalidation

In England, the Skills Funding Agency provides funding for learners who undertakequalifications and credit framework qualifications as a result of recognition of priorlearning (RPL) in England. The agency funding rules state that providers can receivefunding for learners who enter a course via a process of RPL, either the sameamount as for learners who have not undergone RPL, or a reduced amount if theRPL assessment has accounted for more than 50% of the learning outcomes of thecourse. Yet if learners can meet all of the learning outcomes for a unit or qualificationvia RPL, and therefore do not need to undertake any further learning, providers do


(2) Validation centres organise testing sessions which, when successfully carried out, lead to the issuingof a titre de competences (skill certificate). All candidates benefit from an identical assessmentprocedure, using a single set of skills assessment indicators, no matter who is being assessed,where, when or how an assessment takes place. Candidates are asked to demonstrate their skill orability in a given occupation in a situation that is typical for the given occupation, in an approvedtraining centre.

(3) RPL is defined as ‘a method of assessment that considers whether a learner can demonstrate thatthey can meet the assessment requirements for a unit through knowledge, understanding or skillsthey already possess and do not need to develop through a course of learning’ (EuropeanCommission et al., 2014c, p. 5). In this definition of RPL, it is understood that the prior learning ofthe individual is not already recognised by a certificate.

not receive any funding at all (although in practice it is rare for an individual to beable to acquire a full qualification via RPL).

According to a study into RPL within the qualifications and credit frameworkprepared by the Learning and Work Institute (former NIACE – National Institute forAdult and Continuing Education) and published in 2013 (NIACE, 2013), there waslack of awareness of, and also confusion over, the Skills Funding Agency rulesregarding funding for RPL. Most survey respondents (learning providers) reportedthat they did not know what the current funding rules were in relation to RPL. Evenwhere providers were aware of the rules, confusion over the definition of RPL (incontrast to credit transfer/exemption) led to a misunderstanding about how RPLcould be financially supported. The Learning and Work Institute recommended thatthe Skills Funding Agency clarify the funding rule in relation to RPL. In particular,the Learning and Work Institute called for careful explanation of the 50% rule, sincewithin the rule itself it is still necessary to identify how 50% is to be measured,especially in relation to the new funding rates matrix (NIACE, 2013). In the 2014-15funding rules, this text was updated to improve clarity.

2.1.1.2. Funding for specific target groupsDedicated public funding is available for validation relating to specific targetgroups in the Czech Republic, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Itdepends either on employment status or level of education of the individual,though the focus tends to be on the low-qualified and unemployed.

In the Czech Republic, aside from supporting coordination and technicalassistance, public funding is only allocated for validation undertaken by theunemployed. In Iceland, the focus is on the low-qualified (case study 1: Icelandin Section 2.1.2). Similarly in Switzerland, public funding is made available forpeople who do not have a first VET qualification. A recent development inSweden is that, in 2015, further funding (SEK 50 million) has been madeavailable from the government to develop validation for people who are newlyarrived immigrants (Employment Agency, 2014).

In Norway, recognition of informal and non-formal learning related to lowerand upper secondary education is free for the following groups:(a) people with a right to complete their education from primary school to

upper secondary school (costs are borne by county councils);(b) people who are unable to work due to disability (costs are borne by the

Labour and Welfare Service);(c) people having signed a jobseekers’ agreement with the Labour and


Welfare Service can, under some circumstances, have their prior learningexperiences assessed for free. One precondition is that the employmentoffice considers the assessment to be necessary for getting the jobseekers back to work.

2.1.1.3. Vouchers/grants to cover feesIndividuals may be able to access financial support in the form of grants orvouchers (public funding) to cover their fees, in countries where validationproviders charge a fee for the validation process, or where such validationleads to further learning (which must be paid for). Examples include Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia and Finland. In Belgium-Flanders, for example,as part of the government ‘training vouchers’ measure, an employee canrequest annually a training voucher to the value of EUR 250, of which thegovernment contributes half. These vouchers can also be used for validationprocedures relating to the certificate of vocational experience. In Belgium-Wallonia, validation candidates have access to eight hours of training leaveper year, paid for by the State (royal decree of 10 November 2006), whichincludes validation of competences. In Finland, individuals undergoingvalidation for competence-based qualifications (CBQs) can also access anallowance which covers their subsistence costs while studying to completequalifications which have been partially validated (the adult educationallowance) and a scholarship awarded on completion of their qualification (thescholarship for qualified employees).

2.1.1.4. Funding for specific stages of validationIn Denmark and Latvia, public funding only includes certain stages of thevalidation process. In Denmark, financial support for validation is provided bythe Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Science, Innovation and HigherEducation (for tertiary level validation). This public funding covers the costsof assessment at education institutions but does not cover the information orguidance elements of validation. Organisations involved in validation of priorlearning must absorb the costs of provision of information and guidance withintheir existing budgets.

For VET in Latvia it is the guidance stage of validation which is fundedthrough national sources. The institutions or examination centres that havebeen delegated the task of validation (a vocational qualification examination)provide guidance free of charge, making this one of the functions that can bereferred to as being publicly funded, while others are covered by fees paid byindividuals (Box 3 in Section 2.5.1). The quality assurance procedures of the


process (as part of the annual self-evaluation reports of the educationinstitutions) are also funded nationally.

Case study 1 (Section 2.1.2), describing the validation funding model inIceland, shows that it is important to ensure that the information/guidanceelement of validation is given funding, particularly with regard to learners whomay have previously dropped out of education and have negative experiencesof formal education environments; without adequate guidance, these learnerswill face major difficulties in achieving validation of learning outcomes.

In Liechtenstein, similar to Latvia, the costs of validation relating to VETare split between the candidate and the national institution which deliversvalidation, the Office for Vocational Education and Vocational Counselling(ABB). The ABB covers the costs of creating the dossier, evaluating it and anyrequired catch-up classes, while the candidate covers the cost of the (optional)coaching/skills audit seminar. This is also the case in the German-speakingpart of Switzerland, for upper secondary VET.

In Wales, RPL is funded in the HE sector but not in others. The funding isdependent on the purpose of the RPL (4) process. The Higher EducationFunding Council for Wales (HEFCW) provides credit-based funding for part-time and postgraduate provision, which could include RPL modules (5). If anRPL module is provided within a full-time undergraduate course, it is coveredin the funding for the student place, which is made up of a mixture of HEFCWfunding (which may be a very small proportion for full-time undergraduatestudents) and funding from tuition fees (6) (although it is possible that feesmay be discounted for RPL modules). This will not necessarily reflect what itcosts to deliver the modules taken, or how much the institution allocatesinternally to their delivery (the institution is free to spend HEFCW funding howit wishes and is not restricted by the way in which it was calculated). EligibleRPL modules are not treated differently to other modules in calculatingHEFCW funding. Funding is not provided for RPL for entry or admissionspurposes, for experiential learning which has previously been accreditedelsewhere, or for credits from which students are exempted (7).


(4) Here RPL is understood to include both prior certificated and experiential learning.(5) According to the HEFCW circular, these modules are ‘normally taken within a programme of study,

subject to the institution’s policies on the credit contribution limits of APEL to programmes. (…) thesepolicies differ greatly between, and sometimes within, institutions. The learning outcomes of suchmodules focus on the students’ experiential learning and are typically examined by portfolio. Thesemodules need to be subject to similar rigorous quality and standards procedures as applied to taughtprovision’ (HEFCW, 2010).

(6) Tuition grants are also available for some students to cover their fees.(7) Based on information provided by a representative of HEFCW and on HEFCW (2010).

2.1.1.5. Public employment servicesThe public employment services (PES) play a role in providing or distributingfunding for validation in around a quarter of inventory countries. This is thecase in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Malta, Poland, Sloveniaand Sweden. In Sweden for example, development of validation of non-formaland informal learning was mainly funded by the national government throughthe Ministries of Education and Research, and Employment. Today fundinghas been reduced and is mainly channelled through the PES. In Malta, by2014 the national system of validation had only been made operational in thechildcare sector; here there is no cost for the unemployed, as the governmentfunds validation through the Employment Training Corporation. In Poland,sectoral exams are usually financed by applicants, who can requestreimbursement of the examination fee at labour offices, provided they areregistered as unemployed or as a jobseeker.

In Norway collaboration has recently been established between the PES(NAV) and educational authorities. There are now career guidance centres inaround 15 of the 19 counties. These centres use various methods and toolsto support career dialogues with their customers. NAV and the countyeducation authorities have county agreements to ensure targeted cooperationboth at county level (planning) and in practical collaboration at local level,addressing low-skilled individuals in need of assistance from both sectors toincrease job opportunities and, eventually, complete training.

2.1.2. Level of fundingWhere public funding is allocated to validation, a key issue is whether sufficientfunding is available to meet (increases in) demand. In Belgium-Wallonia,although there is funding dedicated to validation of competences, this hasbeen maintained at a stable level and has not increased in proportion to thenumber of potential and actual candidates seeking to have their competencesvalidated. The number of candidates undergoing validation continues toincrease and the related increase in administrative work is creating difficultiesin financing validation sessions. Currently, validation centres partlycompensate for the discrepancy between government subsidies and the realcosts associated with validation, using their own funds.

The Iceland case study outlines the importance of providing funding tocover all stages of validation; it also presents interesting approaches tofunding issues. There is a dedicated national centre which coordinatesvalidation activities, which can be monitored over time and the funding modelaltered accordingly. Further, a decision was made at the outset to give


responsibility (and funding) for validation to lifelong learning (guidance)centres rather than education and training providers, which it is felt hadsignificant benefits in terms of the take-up of the measure and the way it wasdelivered. Iceland is a small country and the numbers of validation applicantsare relatively small-scale, which may have some consequences in terms ofthe transferability of this model.

Case study 1. Iceland

Validation in Iceland is overseen by the national education and training service centre(ETSC), established in December 2002 by the Icelandic Confederation of Labour(ASÍ) and the Confederation of Icelandic Employers (SA). Since 2010, the ETSC hasalso been jointly owned by the Federation of State and Municipal Employees, theAssociation of Local Authorities in Iceland, and the Ministry of Finance.

Validation was initially developed by the ETSC based on learning from othercountries and the experience gained through pilot projects carried out between 2004and 2006 in cooperation with stakeholders. Today, validation is delivered by lifelonglearning centres, on a project basis. Each lifelong learning centre applies for projectfunding from the Education and Training Fund to undertake validation activities. TheETF is financed by the State budget via the Ministry of Education. The ETSC isresponsible for the Education and Training Fund.

Since validation financing started (2007), it has been dedicated specifically tothose with little formal education (without completed upper secondary education).Individuals do not pay for any part of the process, which includes career counselling(delivered by professionals with a diploma or masters in career counselling/educational and vocational counselling) before, during and after validation. However,individuals pay to attend courses to complete their studies, the same as anyoneelse entering the formal school system.

In addition to the project funding, the ETSC is also funded by the Ministry ofEducation to carry out central activities relating to validation. This includes holdingmeetings of the project coordinators and counsellors several times a year, providingtraining, and acting as a coordination point to review progress. The ETSC suggeststhat these opportunities to share experiences and ideas are important becausevalidation is a relatively new concept in Iceland, which requires a certain ‘shift’ inthinking to understand that learning which takes place outside of the formal spherecan also be recognised towards the achievement of a qualification.


There is, however, a limited possibility for individuals outside of the target group(those who have already completed upper secondary education, in particular theunemployed) to access validation free of charge. Validation is delivered to groupsrather than on a one-to-one basis (apart from the assessment interview, which isindividual), so if, within a group, there are individuals who already have uppersecondary level education (in a different subject area) it is still possible to receivefunding to take the process forward. The overall aim of the ETSC is to ensure thatthose who could benefit from validation are able to access it. Those who alreadyhave upper secondary level qualifications but who are unemployed and wish toaccess validation to support a career shift, would be able to do so under the currentmodel. In general, the aim is to ensure that a ratio of at least 80/20 is maintained(with at least 80% of beneficiaries having little formal education).

Funding is allocated annually. Although this may have led to some uncertaintyfor the lifelong learning centres at first, it is now believed by representatives of theETSC that the centres have confidence in the stability of the funding, becausevalidation is now more established in Iceland, having been offered for around eightyears. Prior to applying for funding, the lifelong learning centres must, in cooperationwith relevant stakeholders, identify demand for validation in a certain sector withintheir locality. Their application must then make clear how many individuals will beinvolved in the process, what the outcomes will be for these individuals, and howmuch it will cost to fund. The ETSC assesses each application based on theopportunities for the individuals concerned to move on to further education afterthe validation process, and the presence of education/training providers in thelocality to provide the remaining education required.

The national funding allocation for validation has increased over time. In 2012the total budget of the Education and Training Fund was EUR 4.5 million, of whichfunding for validation amounted to almost EUR 450 000. The total initial budget for2013 was EUR 4.3 million, of which funding for validation was around EUR 440 000but an extra EUR 390 000 was added due to demand for more projects. To date,almost 3 000 learners have gone through a validation process since 2007 underthis scheme, with an annual cohort of 350 to 400. There are currently no signs thatdemand for validation will ‘plateau’ and the ETSC believes that, if more funding wereavailable, there would be demand for more places (although it is also recognisedthat after a certain time in certain sectors, such as dental clinicians, the market willhave been exhausted).

Validation has presented a successful way of supporting people who havedropped out, and/or who have previous negative experiences of formal education,


to gain an understanding of their own abilities and to have these recognised througha formal certificate. There is also evidence that it is less costly than taking theequivalent formal training course: around a third of the cost for manual trades andaround half of the cost for academic subjects. The average cost of validation in 2013was EUR 66.63 per credit/unit, including career counselling throughout the process.The average number of credits/units validated per learner in 2013 was 26, makingthe cost for an average participant EUR 1 732.38. The average cost for one schoolyear, which comprises 35 credits/units, per upper secondary level student, is EUR4 522.55. It has been estimated that the savings generated through offeringvalidation equate to approximately EUR 2 190.48 (based on the calculation that 35units validated would cost EUR 2 332.07): validation costs just over half (52%) ofthe costs to be covered if the individual were to study the same number of units atschool (on average) (ETSC, 2014).

Alongside existing projects, new pilots are being carried out looking at validationagainst specific job standards. These are funded jointly by the ETF and labour marketpartners, with the latter, as a minimum, matching the contribution from the Europeanand training fund (often exceeding it). Participation is also free of charge for theindividual in these instances. It is hoped by the ETSC that it will be possible to expandon this area in the future.

According to the ETSC, one of the reasons that the funding model in Icelandworks well is that the country has a clear definition of the validation process itself;this is set out in a national regulation. It is considered easier to allocate funding toa defined process. The rationale for giving responsibility (and funding) for the deliveryof validation to the lifelong learning centres, rather than formal education andtraining providers, is based on the following:• individuals (often those who have dropped out of formal education in the past)

find it easier to go to a lifelong learning centre than to a formal education andtraining provider such as an upper secondary school. It is probable that theywould be less willing to access validation if it was delivered by a formal educationand training provider, because, in many cases, they have negative perceptionsdue to their previous experiences. Given the nature of the target group, a keysuccess factor is that career counselling is embedded in the model (and fundingis provided for this);

• validation represents a shift in paradigm and for formal education and trainingproviders to deliver validation it may be difficult for them to change mindset. Interms of funding, their focus is likely to be on ensuring they have enough peopleto fill places on their training courses, rather than on ensuring people can gain


credit for the skills they already have. But schools which receive former validationcandidates to complete their studies are positive about these learners, who theysay are highly motivated students with a strong self-esteem.(Nevertheless, case study 4, which looks at funding sources for validation in

the Netherlands, shows that there can be some issues with keeping validationseparate from formal education. A problem encountered with this approach in theNetherlands was that there were many difficulties in transferring the results of the‘recognition of acquired competences’ (EVC) to the formal education arena. This isdiscussed in case study 4 in Section 2.4.3).

Statistics are gathered for each project so that allocation of funding to activitiescan be reviewed. It is also important for the ETSC to maintain an overview of thecost-effectiveness of the process, to ensure continued support from its stakeholders.

Currently, funding is allocated in relation to the number of credits awardedthrough each validation project. Although this model has worked well, the ETSC hasrecently carried out research to try to find out how to improve the existing fundingmodel. The reasons for working on improvements are that projects which result infew credits have been difficult financially; and the apprenticeship part hasincreasingly been included in the validation process and raised the amounts ofcredits, which has made the projects too costly.

The difference often relates to the share of practical elements in the curriculum.The ETSC’s research, based on consultation with the lifelong learning centres,

found that there are two factors which are difficult to assess before validation begins(insecure variables):(a) how difficult it can be to engage people in validation, such as in larger rural

areas, which brings in lower numbers for the group process and can raise costs;(b) how complicated is the process of validation in each education sector, such as

the number of assessors needed to conduct the assessment and the scope ofthe curriculum.The ETSC is developing a new model, in collaboration with the lifelong learning

centres, to take the outcomes of the research into account. It is planned that corefunding from the |Education and Training Fund will be allocated per individual, withtop-up funding, also from the Education and Training Fund, depending on the numberof credits the individual achieves through validation. In relation to validation againstspecific job standards in working life, there is, and will be, a basic payment for eachparticipant completing validation. The amounts are decided by the Education andTraining Fund. A decision on payment amounts has not been taken yet, but is onthe agenda.


The ETSC stresses that it is important to ensure that there is buy-in from thelifelong learning centres to the proposed change to the funding system; for thisreason, they have been consulted throughout the process. This is a benefit for smallcountries: it is easier to ensure a collaborative process and to reach a consensuson any changes.

Feedback to date from the lifelong learning centres is that the new proposalwill make it easier for them to plan their activities: it is currently hard to do sobecause funding is allocated on a credit basis only. Further, they have indicated thatthey will be able to work with smaller groups, which will be of benefit, for example,in rural areas, where individuals sometimes have to wait to undertake validationuntil a large enough cohort can be formed.

Messages from the Icelandic experience include:• it can be beneficial to have a (funded) central coordinating body (the ETSC) to

oversee validation, review progress, allocate funding. For example, the centralcoordinating body can provide opportunities for validation providers to shareexperiences and ideas. If this central body also provides training, it helps to ensurethat the implementation of validation is consistent across providers;

• to cover all aspects of validation (in particular guidance/counselling) the processshould be clearly defined and funding allocated accordingly;

• progress should be monitored over time: this includes monitoring take-upstatistics so that funding can be allocated, monitoring cost-effectiveness, andalso monitoring the funding model so that adjustments can be made if necessary;

• it is important to work collaboratively with the validation providers to ensure thatthe funding model is working well;

• giving the responsibility for delivering validation to organisations outside of formaleducation and training (in this case to lifelong learning centres) can haveadvantages, in particular if validation is targeted at individuals who may haveprevious negative experiences of education;

• two key factors that affect the cost of validation are how difficult it is to engagepeople and how complicated the process is in each sector;

• delivering validation to groups, rather than one to one, can mean that there is adelay in access, as applicants have to wait until a sufficient number of candidatescan be brought together. This can be an issue, for instance, in rural areas.

Source: Interview and email correspondence with representatives of the ETSC.


2.1.3. Strengths and weaknessesTable 1 presents strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of dedicatedpublic funding for validation, from national sources.

Table 1. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of dedicatedpublic funding for validation, from national sources

2.2. Countries with public funding not specificallyfor validation

In almost a third of countries, although validation is financed – at least partly– through public funds, there is no budget earmarked for this activity. This isnotable in the HE sector. Countries where this is the case are: Austria,Belgium-Flanders (HE), England (HE), Estonia (HE and VET, see case studyin Section 2.3.4), Finland (VET: CBQs and HE), France, Germany (externalexamination, HE), Hungary (adult learning and HE), Norway (upper secondaryeducation (for adults), IVET, CVET and HE), Poland (VET and HE), Scotland,Sweden (general education, IVET, adult education and HE), Switzerland (all


Strengths and enablers

• dedicated funding is an incentive forproviders and learners to offer and takeup validation

• distributing funding in proportion toactivity levels can be an efficient and fairway of allocating the dedicated budget

• funding for specific target groups canmean that validation can be used as a toolto address wider issues, such as helpingthe unemployed

• to ensure this is working well, the way thefunding is distributed should be regularlyreviewed

• may mean that validation can be offeredfree of charge

Weaknesses and barriers

• where providers need to claim fundingper learner, guidance around eligibilityshould be clear, or this can lead toconfusion

• if funding only covers certain stages ofthe process, this may lead providers toavoid offering the unfunded stages (e.g.guidance/counselling), which may affectparticipation levels and outcomes

Source: Cedefop.

sectors except for upper secondary VET) and Wales (IVET). Where fundingis embedded in this sense, it is very difficult to assess total resources usedfor validation. Providers deliver validation within their existing budgets.

In most of these countries, where validation arrangements are available,education and training providers deliver these using their existing budgets.For instance in Sweden, much of the validation taking place today isperformed within the funding framework of formal education and training. Thismakes it difficult to assess the total amount of resources used for validation.In Germany, (summative) validation (the external examination) remainsintegrated into regular formal education structures and is also funded in theframework of those structures. In Austria, public funding is available formeasures such as second chance education or for preparing for externalexams for obtaining qualifications which might also include validationprocedures.

In Finland, there is no money earmarked for validation, but it is an integralpart of the education system, especially in relation to competence-basedqualifications (CBQs). Validation is also not charged for in HE institutes but isan integral part of the guidance and counselling after enrolment and so is(almost) free to individuals in Finland; this applies to students at all levels ofeducation from general to vocational and HE. However, all participants in theCBQ system are required to pay a small fee of EUR 58 per qualification,whether they study all courses or only take part in competence tests to havetheir prior learning validated. The EUR 58 fee includes competence tests forall parts of the qualification. The fee is seen as low, with all other costs arepaid by the public authorities so this is the only fee for students. It is not seenas a barrier to learning or validation in Finland.

2.2.1. Possible issues resulting from lack of earmarked fundingThere are several issues with using funding from providers’ existing budgetsto cover the validation costs. First, validation presents a significant shift inparadigm for education and training providers, as in the Iceland case study.Without funding to act as a driver to incentivise validation delivery, this shift inattitudes and perceptions may be slower or may not take place at all. Second,in some countries there is a perception among providers that validation is anexpensive, time-consuming process, due to the individualised nature of theprocedures. This may also act as a barrier to wider delivery of validation byeducation and training institutions, if they are not given dedicated funding.

The 2009 peer learning activity (PLA) on the costs and benefits ofvalidation reported anecdotal evidence from institutions and employers


suggesting that validation is a resource-intensive activity, yet most are hiddencosts (such as time invested, human resources costs). High costs toorganisations were suggested to be among the main obstacles to greater take-up. It seems that, in some countries, this continues to be the case, either inperceptions or in reality. Where costs are high, it may be that even wherepublic funding (dedicated or not) is available for validation, it is insufficient tocover these costs and/or the efforts required for adapting to the needs of thoserequiring validation. Some examples of countries without dedicated funding,where the high costs of validation are perceived to be an issue, are presentedbelow.

In Norwegian HE, for instance, institutions are allocated funding based onstudy points achieved by the individual learners. If learners are granted anexemption on the basis of validation, the institution may receive less fundingfor that particular learner. Overall, this loss is not substantial because thenumber of study points is only one component of a financial model amountingto 30% of the subsidy from the Ministry of Education, while 70% is the ‘basiccomponent’ that can be used for many purposes, including validation.Institutional loss of funds may also be at least partly compensated throughhigher admission numbers. Nevertheless, in the 2010 Norway country updateit was noted that HE institutions report that additional resources – up to 10times more – are needed to assess an applicant using validation of priorlearning, compared to an applicant with standard formal qualifications. This isbecause they must assess the supporting documentation (such as statementsfrom employers) which serves as proof of competences along with thestandard application form.

In England, providers and awarding organisations interviewed for theLearning and Work Institute study (NIACE, 2013) considered RPL to be acostly procedure due to its individualised nature. This was reiterated ininterviews carried out for the country update. Nevertheless, the Learning andWork Institute report also recognises that RPL can be cost-effective: it is seenas an efficient means of recognising achievement in the construction sector,for example, because most of the training in construction is done on site.

In the 2014 country update for Scotland, it is also suggested that one ofthe barriers to take-up is a perception among providers that RPL is expensiveand time-consuming. There is no dedicated public funding for RPL and so itcan seem easier and cheaper to include a person in the cohort for a course,rather than to carry out a one-to-one process of RPL: for example, a one-to-one RPL process uses considerably more staff time than adding an extralearner to a course that would be run anyway. It is perhaps for this reason that


in Scottish HE there is generally no charge for RPL which takes place as partof the admissions process, while RPL claims for credit tend to be subject to afee, which varies across institutions. In the college sector, another issue is thefunding model for college provision. For instance, if a learner uses RPL toreduce the learning he/she needs to undertake to acquire a qualification, thiscan affect their status and the funding to which they are entitled. A learnerundertaking fewer modules than a full course is deemed to be a part-timelearner, since funding is calculated by attendance hours. This can have aknock-on effect on their funding status: part-time students are required to paytheir own fees, while full time students can be eligible for funding fromgovernment.

Another possible issue in devolving responsibility for financing validationto education and training providers is that provision may vary in terms of theapproaches and methods used. Without funding for a national organisation/entity to coordinate practice, for example by providing training to practitioners,there is a risk that both the level and standard of provision will vary from oneprovider to another. This variation may lead to issues of access and qualityfor individuals wishing to undergo validation. The Estonia case studydiscusses this in more detail.

2.2.2. Additional costs to providers wishing to offer validationIn some countries, providers wishing to carry out validation will incur costsbefore they can do so. This is the case in the Czech Republic and Romania.In the Czech Republic, ‘authorised persons’ (entities who have beenauthorised to carry out assessment of prior non-formal and informal learningin relation to vocational qualifications (8)) face several initial costs. They haveto be able to provide the technical and material conditions necessary forcarrying out the assessment. For example, authorised persons must possessany required equipment: this condition can be satisfied by both education andtraining institutions, which have the necessary equipment for teaching, butalso enterprises which have the equipment for purposes of service/productdelivery. Entities wishing to become authorising bodies have to pay a feecovering the authorisation process; in 2014, this was CZK 1 500 (aroundEUR 60) for each authorisation. In Romania, each assessment centre isexpected to pay a fee for their authorisation to assess specific qualificationskills.


(8) These can be schools, private institutions, companies as well as persons (e.g. a craftsman canbecome an authorised person).

2.2.3. Strengths and weaknessesTable 2 presents some strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of publicfunding not specifically allocated to validation.

Table 2. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of public fundingnot specifically allocated to validation

2.3. EU and project fundingSeveral countries rely on EU sources of funding to develop or maintain theirvalidation systems, as well as to fund specific projects. This section looks atthe use of EU funding to support ‘mainstream’ validation, as well as discussingthe use of project funding to support the establishment of validation systemsor piloting of smaller-scale initiatives.

The main source of EU funding for more ‘mainstream’ validation seemsto be the ESF. EU funding is often used alongside national public sources,due to the requirement for match funding: for this reason countries mentionedin this section may also be mentioned in Section 2.1 and/or 2.2. The use ofESF funding to support validation is mentioned in the country data for Belgium-Flanders (certificate of vocational experience), Belgium-Wallonia (HE),Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia (where HE and VET werepreviously funded by the ESF, as discussed in case study 3 in Section 2.3.4),



• validation is integrated into formaleducation and training structures, whichin turn may mean that it is more easilyaccepted/ understood by education andtraining providers, as well as otherstakeholders

• providers have autonomy to decide howfunding for their institution should bespent, to meet the needs of their learners


• difficult to assess the resources used for(money spent on) validation and for thisreason may also make it difficult tomonitor the level of validation provision

• providers may be slow to offer validationor may not do so at all, especially if thereis a perception that validation is a costlyprocess

• if there is no funding for coordinationactivities, the quality of provision mayvary

Source: Cedefop.

France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Cyprus (VET), Lithuania, Poland, Portugaland Spain. However, the country data cover the period from 2007 to early2015 and so may not cover recent developments in the new ESF fundingperiod of 2014-20.

Project funding (including from the EU) has been an important source ofsupport for validation activities since 2007 for many countries. Projects canbe an important starting point for validation initiatives, such as setting upcommon practices. They can also be a means to try out new methods or towork with new target groups. However, there are also limitations to the use ofproject-based funding. It can lead to a focus on short-term results and therecan be issues around sustainability. Further, projects may have to worktowards targets set by the funding body, which can mean that validation isdriven by these targets, rather than being user-centred. In most countries,public/EU funding is used to support validation projects, rather than, oralongside, ‘mainstream’ validation systems. This is the case, according to thedata collected, in Austria, Belgium-Wallonia (HE), Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark,England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland (VET, adulteducation and HE), Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden andSwitzerland (9). While many of these projects are pilot initiatives (e.g. Austria),in some countries project-based funding is the approach taken to supportingproviders to deliver mainstream validation opportunities (e.g. Cyprus).

2.3.1. EU funding for the provision of (mainstream) validationIn Belgium-Flanders, Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Portugal and Spain, fundingfor mainstream validation is allocated on a project basis. Iceland is discussedin greater detail in case study 1 (Section 2.1.2). In Belgium-Flanders,assessment centres wishing to deliver the certificate for vocational experienceare also required to apply for project-based funding. Organisations wishing toassess applicants are recognised centrally by the Minister for Work after theyhave fulfilled the accreditation procedure by responding to a call for proposalsby the ESF. A yearly budget of EUR 800 000 is available, provided as 55%joint financing, with 45% coming from the ESF. This enables the centres toprovide a validation service, including guidance and counselling, andassessment of competences, for free.

In Cyprus, the vocational qualifications system has been jointly funded


(9) Most countries are likely to have project-based activities of some sort. The countries listed specificallyreferred to projects in the data provided for this report.

since 2007 by the ESF (85%) and the Human Resource DevelopmentAuthority (HRDA) (15%). In Greece, the National Organisation for theCertification of Qualifications and Vocational Guidance (Eoppep), the leadinginstitution in validation, is part funded by the operational programme‘development of human resources’. This shared funding covers certificationof teaching competence of adult trainers for non-formal education and thedevelopment of a coherent system for certification of outputs; thedevelopment/amendment of other national certification systems is also jointlyfunded by the ESF. In Spain, the main source of validation financing since2007 has been the ESF. All calls for accreditation of competences have beenjointly funded between the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Employmentand the ESF.

To help reduce the high numbers of people without formal qualificationsin Portugal, ESF funding is being used to support the delivery of validation(certification of competences, RVCC) opportunities. There is also a nationalinstitution (the National Agency for Qualifications and Vocational Educationand Training, ANQEP) with responsibility for overseeing RVCC, which is notfunded by the ESF. This is in contrast to the Estonian example in case study3 (Section 2.3.4), where ESF funding supported the coordination efforts andthese are no longer sustained now that the ESF funding has ended.

Case study 2. Portugal

Portugal has a validation system for general education and VET, known as RVCC(Reconhecimento, Validação e Certificação de Competências; recognition, validationand certification of competences. There are two types of RVCC. Academic RVCCrelates to lower and upper secondary levels of education and is based on keycompetence standards from the national qualifications catalogue. This type of RVCCmay result in the award of qualifications at levels 1, 2 or 3 of the nationalqualifications framework. Professional RVCC is based on professional RVCCstandards available in the national qualifications catalogue for differentqualifications. These processes are related to qualification levels 2 and 4 of thenational qualifications framework. For example, a candidate with professionalexperience as a cook may undertake a professional RVCC within the standardavailable for this qualification in the national qualifications catalogue and be awardeda relevant certificate.

RVCC is delivered by both public and private providers: these are subject to


different funding arrangements. At the time of writing, the centres for qualificationand VET (CQEP) that belong to the national public system (schools or training centres)receive financial support from the State budget, while private centres (privateschools or training providers) have to use their own resources to deliver validation,without support from the State (or fees from the beneficiaries, as the law on RVCCstates that fees cannot be charged for RVCC procedures).

Funding for public RVCC centres covers the cost of the staff involved indelivering RVCC. These may be teachers/trainers who carry out RVCC as part oftheir existing role, or practitioners who work solely on RVCC. The funding is givento the institutions and covers their work in delivering RVCC but also in developingthe RVCC processes.

ANQEP, the national agency for qualifications and VET, has a coordinating role.ANQEP’s responsibilities include managing the RVCC centres, including provision oftraining and monitoring activities. The aim is to provide centrally developed tools topromote some consistency, while allowing some autonomy for the centres deliveringRVCC at local level. ANQEP’s activities (creation of standards and guidelines for theimplementation of RVCC, monitoring of the network) in relation to RVCC are fundedthrough the State budget, not the ESF; this is because they fall under thecompetences of the agency, which is required to meet the demands of the nationalqualifications system.

Between June and September 2015 there was a national call for proposals inwhich CQEP (both public and private) in eligible regions could apply for ESF fundingto deliver RVCC (bids were being assessed at the time of writing this report). A benefitof ESF funding is thought to be that it has led to a focus on results. The centres hadto outline in their bids how many individuals they would support and their estimatedsuccess rate in terms of outcomes (e.g. achievement of a (partial) certificate). Thefunding will be allocated according to proposals and paid based on outcomesachieved. Funding will be allocated for a period of just over a year, from September2015 through to December 2016. It is anticipated that during this time, thanks tothe ESF funding, there will be an increase in the volume of RVCC activity. The ESFbudget for RVCC is around EUR 73 million for a period of five years.

RVCC has been identified as an activity for support from the ESF because thereare still high numbers of people in Portugal who do not have formal qualifications.The RVCC model is considered to be very effective in tackling this issue because itallows people to return to education and training and have recognition of the skillsthey have acquired throughout life. Although there is no formal evidence of its cost-effectiveness, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is cheaper to achieve a (partial)


qualification through RVCC than it is to take part in formal training. Further, it is oftenthe case that people who return to education and training via RVCC go on toundertake further studies. Although there was a large predecessor programme toRVCC (the new opportunities initiative) it is considered that there is still aconsiderable need for RVCC to help address the issue of the high number of peoplewith low levels of qualifications. Changes made between the new opportunitiesinitiative and RVCC initiatives relate to procedures (the new approach hasrestructured the evaluation in the certification stage) and focus (there is also agreater investment in professional RVCC processes).

Source: Interview with representative of ANQEP.

2.3.2. EU funding for related developmentsThe ESF can also be used to fund developments which will support validation,such as qualifications registers and standards. In Slovenia, for example, theestablishment of both the national vocational qualifications framework andSlovenian qualifications framework was funded and jointly funded byEuropean sources. In the Czech Republic, EU funding was used to initiate,develop, maintain and coordinate the national qualifications register, which isthe basis of the validation system. The costs were covered by 85% from theoperational programme education for competitiveness, implemented in theprogramme period 2007-13.

2.3.3. EU funding for (pilot) projectsA significant number of smaller-scale EU-funded projects supporting validationactivities can also be identified across Europe. The funding programmesinclude Leonardo da Vinci, lifelong learning and Erasmus+. A database ofdescriptions of over 120 projects was created for the 2014 inventory, many ofwhich are described in more depth in the individual country updates (10).

EU funding is (and has been over the course of the three inventoriescovered by this thematic report) used for several aims: to support thedevelopment of new methods through pilot projects and research; to promotevalidation as a tool to support the inclusion of disadvantaged groups; and to


(10) The compendium of projects can be found at: Cedefop: Validation of non-formal and informallearning: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning/compendium-of-projects [accessed 1.3.2016].

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning/compendium-of-projects

develop validation for workers in specific sectors/professions. It also supportsexchange of good practice as a precursor to developing processes with theaid of the ESF. In January 2016 the European Commission launched a callfor proposals for policy experimentation in which one of the priorities isvalidation of informal and non-formal learning in education and training (11).

2.3.4. EU and project funding time limitationsIt is evident from some countries that the ESF or other EU funding can providean important starting-point for the development of validation. In Italy, forexample, the 2007 country report notes that the first pioneer validationexperiences were all supported by the ESF. By 2010, the ESF and Leonardoda Vinci programmes were the main sources of funding for validation. Today,the institutional intention is to make the validation and certification servicesindependent from European funds and financially autonomous, by exploringdifferent approaches to cooperation between public and private sectors. Thefirst step will be to come to an agreement on the standards of costs and onquality and reliability assurance for private actors in the system. Two examplesof public and private cooperation can be found in Emilia Romagna andLombardia. Emilia Romagna offers the companies the possibility to ask to usethe public validation system to validate competences and qualifications fortheir employees. In this case the public provides the methodology andsupervision while the company bears the costs. Another example isLombardia, where the validation service is free and public but the finalbeneficiary is asked to make a contribution to the production of thedossier/portfolio of evidence. It has also been suggested that the funds forcontinuous training, paid for by employers, could be used to set up validationservices.

In Finland, ESF funding has been used at development stage and thensustained through national funding. There has been extensive nationwidetraining for validation practitioners in HE, coordinated by the University ofTurku and University of Eastern Finland. The training programme was initiallydeveloped as an ESF project (ISOK), but national training activities were laterfinanced by the National Board of Education. Over 1 000 validationpractitioners have studied one or more modules of the training programme in


(11) European Commission, EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency: Key action3, initiatives for policy innovation: European policy experimentation, EACEA 34/2015.https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/key-action-3-initiatives-for-policy-innovation-european-policy-experimentation-eacea-342015_en [accessed 1.3.2016].

https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/key-action-3-initiatives-for-policy-innovation-european-policy-experimentation-eacea-342015_en

Finland and abroad; in 2013 the training programme received a Europeanvalidation prize in the category ‘new VNIL profession’.

As highlighted in the Estonian case study below, EU funding (whether ona small- or larger-scale) can bring significant benefits in supportingdevelopment of validation systems, where sufficient national funding is notavailable. However, sustainability is a key question for activities funded fromEU sources.

Case study 3. Estonia

In Estonia, ESF funding was used over two periods between 2005 and 2013 tosupport the introduction of validation (referred to as recognition of prior learning,RPL, and including prior formal, non-formal and informal learning) to HE and, later,VET. This generated significant benefits in terms of bringing providers together todevelop practices and processes. The challenge now is to sustain the activities thatwere supported via the ESF.

Over 2005-08, the ESF programme LÜKKA was the first initiative to supportimplementation of RPL in HE. This was a time of development for the HE sector inseveral areas: other developments included moving towards the use of learningoutcomes and changing teaching practices. RPL was identified as one of the areasfor development; ESF funding was allocated to support it. Several study trips(including France, the Netherlands and the UK) took place and the best practicesobserved abroad had an influence on developments locally. For example, the STARRmethod (situation, task, action, result, reflection) was adopted from the Netherlandsand has been used as a tool to support applicant self-analysis. This first phasefocused on introducing the concept of RPL and getting to know its potential benefits– the focus was on theory rather than practical implementation. At the time, RPLwas a new concept to HE institutions and this preliminary phase was important inincreasing awareness and establishing the motivation to take part.

Over 2008-13 most of the funding for RPL development in HE was through theESF project Primus. The budget for RPL activities during this time was EEK 27.9million (EUR 1.8 million). ESF funding covered 95% of project costs and theremaining 5% was covered from project partners’ and HE institutions’ own funding.By this point the aim was to unify different practices that had started to form in thesector. Much attention was given to training validation counsellors and assessors,and setting up common principles and procedures. Funding was provided to develop


information materials on validation, and information weeks were organised to createawareness of validation among the general public. Universities that had a longervalidation tradition (e.g. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn University and TartuUniversity) were leading developments at this time As well as these developmentactivities, ESF funding also covered the costs of RPL applications. Thanks to thededicated funding and targeting of certain students, RPL applications increasedduring this timeframe: in 2012, there were 9 168 applications for RPL in HE,compared to 6 986 in 2009.

ESF funding has now ended and there is no funding in the State budget forvalidation. Universities can charge a fee for RPL but, currently, most do RPL free ofcharge. The cost of RPL counselling and assessment is seen as part of staff dailywork and duties. Where fees are charged, these vary. Certain institutions charge afee based on the amount of credit points applied for: as example, at the TallinnUniversity of Technology costs for processing an application range from EUR 10 toEUR 575). For others there is a simple application fee with no additional credit pointcharge. There is no overall system and, to date, there has been no analysis of thedistribution of costs for RPL in HE.

It is too early to tell if this is having an impact on the number of applications tothose institutions which charge a fee. However, it is likely that it will put somelearners off undertaking an RPL procedure: HE is free in Estonia so it is likely to bea strong disincentive to have to pay a fee for an RPL procedure, if the candidatecould simply take part in the HE course free of charge.

Experience of the delivery of RPL to date in Estonia is that, although individualswho underwent RPL did not save money (because HE is free), they saved time. This,in turn, enabled them to do paid work alongside their studies; earning money waseffectively a financial saving.

A benefit of the ESF funding was that it brought Estonia’s HE institutionstogether to develop policies and materials, as well as training for practitioners. Thishelped to promote consistency in the way RPL is applied in universities across thecountry. Through the training for practitioners, it also helped to ensure that therewere staff with dedicated responsibility for RPL, who saw themselves as RPLpractitioners. However, now that the ESF funding has come to an end and validationis left to individual institutions, there is a risk that, without the coordination of RPLat national level, the focus and momentum generated by ESF projects will be lost.

An example, is the ESF funding supporting development and delivery of trainingfor practitioners, which was felt to be particularly beneficial. Originally trainees were


given RPL as an additional task on top of their existing roles and, on starting thetraining course, had little understanding of what RPL is and how it works. Withsupport from the ESF, they were given additional remuneration to carry out RPL aspart of their job. By the end of the training, the staff saw themselves as RPLcounsellors and saw RPL as a key part of their job. Now, many of these staff havemoved on to different posts; where new people replace them, they do not haveaccess to the same level of training and support, which will affect the extent towhich they are able (and willing) to carry out RPL as part of their roles. Further, theRPL aspect of their role no longer has the same recognition from universities. Thiswill affect the motivation of the staff involved and, in turn, the level of service theyprovide to individual applicants.

Another benefit of ESF funding was the opportunity to run seminars to discussRPL, including to look at more complicated cases and prepare case studies. It is notclear how much this kind of activity will be continued without funding.

Since ESF funding ended, there have also been some structural changes withinuniversities that will affect the way that RPL is dealt with. For instance, in TallinnUniversity, there was previously a dedicated assessment board to deal with RPLapplications and maintain consistency in the way these were assessed. Thisdedicated assessment board no longer exists, which means that each institute withinthe university is responsible for its own RPL assessments. As a result, there is nooverall oversight to ensure consistency. Monitoring of RPL is also no longer carriedout centrally at the university, which means that it is not possible to maintain anoverview of RPL applications. Training for RPL practitioners will now be theresponsibility of the institutes within the university, so may not be carried out by allof them.

General funding for HE institutions is also undergoing a change from an input-based model (relating to the number of students attending an institution) to anoutput-based model (relating to the number of students graduating from aninstitution). This change is likely to make a significant (positive) difference to theuniversities’ approaches to RPL. When funding is paid for the learners’ outcomes, itdoes not matter whether these outcomes were achieved through formal learning orRPL.

Funding for developing RPL in VET was, similar to HE, sourced from the ESFprogramme, through the projects:• substantive development of vocational education 2008-13;• KUTSE programme (continuing education programme in VET for early school

leavers).


Over 2012-14 the development of RPL in VET was funded at approximately EUR30 000 for development and implementing RPL principles in VET and around EUR1.8 million for learning places and supporting validation of non-formal and informallearning in VET institutions. The money was used for training, meetings and seminarsand for developing information materials on RPL. In the ESF programme‘Development of a professional qualification system for the period 2008-13’approximately EUR 200 000 was allocated to the development of RPL-basedassessment criteria for professional examinations and for training evaluators (butthis was not limited to VET).

Without ESF support, it is unlikely that these developments would have takenplace, since there was no funding available from the national State budget to payfor them. Now that the ESF funding has come to an end, institutions can chargefees to individuals wishing to undergo RPL but, in practice, none of them currentlydo so, which means that RPL counselling and assessment is free of charge forapplicants. Vocational education in Estonia is State-commissioned, so expensesrelated to provision of teaching and education (including RPL) are covered from theState budget based on student training places. RPL counselling and assessment isseen as a school requirement in performing their main functions and ensuring thequality of education. The fact that VET providers do not charge fees to their learnersmay be because they consider it to be more beneficial to use RPL as a means ofattracting future students.

There are no national guidelines on the fees that can be charged: it is up to theschools to determine fees. There have been discussions on limiting free-of-chargeRPL for students who have already been admitted to the school but, so far, suchlimitations have not been applied: the discussions were in response to instanceswhere people applied at the same time for RPL from different VET schools – tryingto choose the one which agreed to accept highest amount of credits.

There has been no analysis of how well the current RPL funding model isworking, but, as dropout rate VET institutions has been quite high for years and adultlearners are increasingly studying in VET institutions (almost 30% of students areadult learners), the schools benefit financially. Further, in adult education, motivationto study is higher if non-formal and informal learning is recognised.

As RPL funding in vocational education is covered through State-commissionedstudy costs, it is considered by the Ministry of Education and Research to besustainable. ESF funding helped to train assessors and counsellors and made itpossible to set up common principles and procedures. However, similar to HE, there


is a risk that without central RPL coordination (something that was possible thanksto the ESF funding) the competences of counsellors and assessors will not bemaintained up to date, the procedures in institutions may not retain the same qualityor standards, and the network of RPL assessors and counsellors will not remainviable. Further discussion is required on the need for central coordination of RPL,as well as the availability of appropriate training for staff new to this area. Also,ways of sharing best practice among providers should be discussed with them.

The Estonia case shows that ESF funding can be used to set up the foundationsof a validation system and to promote consistency in the approach developed (e.g.when used for training for practitioners, or to develop standardised tools). It alsoshows that it is important to try to establish a sustainable funding model to supportvalidation delivery after a system has been set up via project funding. Withoutfunding for a coordination point at national level to undertake activities such astraining, monitoring and information provision, the commitment to validation at thelevel of each institution and the extent of relevant activities may vary once the start-up funding has gone.

Source: Interview (covering HE) with inventory country expert, based at Tallinn University and information (covering VET)provided by a representative of the Ministry of Education and Research.

Sustainability issues can also be observed in other countries. In the CzechRepublic, it is not yet clear how continuous updating of the aforementionedassessment standards will be funded. In Lithuania, most, if not all, pilotprojects on validation are funded from EU sources (ESF, Erasmus+ and itspredecessors). However, no further national or regional funding arrangementsfor validation are available or are made available for newly developedinitiatives once the project comes to an end.

In Belgium-Wallonia, one of the main challenges identified for validationof acquired experience (VAE) in HE is lack of sustainable, long-term funding.The VAE-university project (an inter-university coordination project) receiveda total budget of EUR 5.6 million for 2008-13. The budget is jointly funded byWallonia-Brussels Federation, universities themselves, and the ESF. The endof the project was planned for December 2013, however the project wasfunded for one more year (2014). At the time of writing the 2014 countryupdate for Belgium, future funding remained uncertain. According to VAEactors, funding received by the ESF and Wallonia-Brussels Federation is notsufficient to develop VAE fully in universities, considering the number of staffinvolved and the level of involvement required from the institutions. Without


ESF and regional funding, the sustainability of VAE in universities could beundermined. An issue identified by experts interviewed for the 2014 countryupdate for Greece is that although the results of (EU-funded) projects havethe potential to add significant value to validation, they have not been adoptedor used by public bodies. Therefore, relevant initiatives are not disseminatedand implemented in the domestic labour market. Without activities tomaintain/sustain and scale up development projects, the risk is that thelearning and outputs they generate will be lost.

2.3.5. Strengths and weaknessesTable 3 presents strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of EU andproject funding.

Table 3. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of EU and projectfunding



• projects can be an important starting pointfor validation initiatives: without the EU orproject-funding it is likely that thevalidation opportunities would not beprovided

• may mean that it is possible to offervalidation free of charge

• can support innovation, e.g. new methods,tools, work with new target groups

• transnational projects can support transferof good practices


• can lead to a focus on short-term results• there can be issues around sustainability

of the projects/activities• projects may have to work towards

targets set by the funding body, which canmean that the validation process is drivenby these targets, rather than being user-centred

• without activities to maintain/sustain andscale up developmental projects, the riskis that the learning and outputs theygenerate will be lost

Source: Cedefop.

2.4. Countries mixing public and private sectorfunding

A quarter of inventory countries combine funding for validation from both publicand private sources. These include Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy,the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. In Denmark, France and Italy, privatefunding is sourced from private sector funds (such as training funds), whichtend to be administered by social partners. In Germany, the social partnerstake responsibility for a specific aspect of the process (providing advice andguidance). In some countries individual employers cover the fees which arecharged to employees wishing to undertake validation (Croatia (for sectoralvalidation practices), the Czech Republic, Germany (for the external students’examination), Latvia, Romania and Slovenia (for validation carried out byprofessional/craftsman associations).

2.4.1. Use of funds financed through employer contributionsIn France, the funding streams for validation of experience (validation desacquis de l’expérience, VAE, which covers VET and HE, as well as sectoralqualifications recognised by social partners) are complex due to the variety ofstakeholders. Public funding comes from the overall budget for lifelonglearning, including State funding within each ministry (ministries in charge ofnational education, HE, agriculture, labour, culture, sports and youth, socialaffairs, health, defence) and regional funding. Regional authorities can allocatefunding with a view to supporting the development of VAE; they are alsoresponsible for the information and guidance centres that support validationand finance them. The public employment services (Pôle emploi) contributeto the funding of VAE and information and guidance centres can also receivefunding from the ESF. Private sources include bipartite bodies with funds forindividual training leave (Fonds de gestion des congés individuels deformation, Fongecif or Organismes paritaires collecteurs agrees, OPCA).These are sectoral bodies managed by social partners, collecting taxes fromemployers and employees to finance and develop training. Additionalcontributions come from employers and candidates’ own funding.

Within the Danish AMU-programmes (AMU refers to vocational training),RPL participants are entitled to a fixed VEU-allowance (VEU refers to adulteducation and training) financed by the State (VEU-godtgørelse). Thiscorresponds to 80% of the maximum unemployment insurance benefit rate.As most participants are employed and receive full salary during the validation


period, this allowance is primarily paid to employers as partial wagereimbursement. As with education and training within AMU, expenditure forthe allowances is covered by State financing and by the employers’reimbursement scheme (Arbejdsgivernes Uddannelsesbidrag, AUB) to whichall enterprises contribute a fixed amount regardless of levels of participationin adult education and continuing training activities.

While in the other countries discussed here employer funding is mainlyused for more ‘mainstream’ validation opportunities, in Italy, employers’training funds (fondi interprofessionali) have been used to finance validationprojects and models. Emilia Romagna has experience of funding cooperationbetween public bodies and specific enterprises interested in validation for theiremployers.

2.4.2. Private sector stakeholders with some validation responsibilityIn Germany, chambers are responsible for information, counselling andvalidation in respect of the external students’ examination. They are fundedby contributions from their member companies. Also, the ProfilPASS-systemis an example of an initiative sustained through a public-private-partnership.

In Spain, in 2013, some private initiatives were developed for largecompanies, such as Mercadona (food sector), Ambuiberica (sanitary sector),or associations of companies, such as Confemadera (furniture sector) whoinvested money for accreditation of their own workers. These initiatives weredeveloped in agreement with the public administration.

In Sweden, responsibility for adapting validation methods to the needs ofa specific industry has been allocated to the business sector organisationsthemselves. Development of the methods has been funded partly by thegovernment, but many business sector organisations have also contributedresources to developing methods and procedures for validation.

2.4.3. Validation as a commercial activityIn the Netherlands, validation is carried out as a commercial activity andcannot be supported by public funds. The Dutch funding model is describedin more detail in the case study 4.


Case study 4. The Netherlands

A national system for validation of non-formal and informal learning was introducedin the Netherlands in 1998. Under the umbrella term EVC, which stands for erkenningvan verworven competenties (validation of prior learning, where prior learningreferring to prior formal, non-formal and informal learning), the system encompassesboth formalised validation (leading to the award of a validated profile or to theaccreditation of learning outcomes) and more open, informal use of EVC as aninstrument for a diversity of lifelong learning perspectives.

Between 2006 and 2010 government subsidies were distributed for thedevelopment of infrastructure to stimulate the provision of EVC. The funding wasgiven to partnerships of educational institutes, regional government and employers.The subsidies were used to develop EVC procedures and promote its use. It wasalso possible to subsidise the costs of undertaking an EVC procedure.

During this time, a project directorate was established to promote collaborationbetween the Ministries of Employment and Education. There was also a significantinvestment in the promotion of EVC, leading to greater public attention for EVC thanthere is today.

In 2009-10 there were specific projects to provide EVC for the unemployed orpeople at risk of becoming unemployed. These were very successful in terms of thenumbers of participants engaged, which significantly exceeded the targets.

The subsidies ended in 2010 when it was deemed that provision was sufficientand that there were too many EVC providers. By this time there were 120 providers,many of whom stopped providing these procedures because it was no longer cost-effective enough for them: there were not enough participants to make it worthwhilefor the partnerships to provide the service. The number of providers today is about60 to 70 and this figure is considered more appropriate.

During the period when the subsidies were provided, the number of participantsin EVC procedures increased considerably: by 2010 the annual figure was around22 000 (Leushuis, 2014). After the subsidies ended, it is estimated that the annualfigure dropped to around 17 000 participants a year (data were no longer collectedon the number of EVC participants from 2011 onwards). It is likely that the removalof the public funding – and with it the promotion of EVC – is part of the cause of thedrop in participation but another reason is that an initial peak in figures when theinitiative was introduced has now dropped to a more steady number on an annualbasis. Another factor which may have contributed to this drop in numbers is the


financial and economic situation (Leushuis, 2014), mainly because employersresponded to the economic situation by cutting costs of training andeducation/learning and development, including EVC.

A study was published in 2011 looking at the effects of EVC (Stoel and Wenztel,2011). While it was anticipated that the EVC certificate of experience, or the reporton the results of the EVC procedure, would help beneficiaries to find new/changejobs, this study shows that people were actually only able to move on to anotherjob or benefit from other positive outcomes (such as mobility or income) once theyhad succeeded in obtaining a formal qualification after undertaking EVC. Thissuggests that employers continue to have greater trust in formal qualifications thanin the EVC certificates of experience.

Today, EVC is financed in different ways, by different stakeholders, dependingon the context in which it is applied. The quality code prescribes that EVC should bea commercial activity: public organisations cannot use their government funding forEVC. The costs should be market-driven, transparent and not-subsidised. Further,no national limits are imposed on the costs which are set by the EVC providers.

Compensation for EVC (procedure, assessment) is possible through:• subsidies for employers based on legal arrangements;• fiscal facilities (such as income tax relief on costs for education) for employees

and the unemployed looking for jobs;• many collective labour agreements (CLAs) in the sectors include a paragraph on

compensation for employers and/or employees, using EVC.The CLAs vary considerably across the sectors in the way they refer to

validation. For instance, a CLA might state that all employees have a right to an EVCprocedure, paid for by the employer. Others make use of collective funds whichemployers/employees pay into, and these pay for such procedures. There are alsodifferent limits on how often/many times an individual can take up an EVC procedure.Some CLAs set a limit of one EVC procedure every few years, while others do notset a limit. In addition to the CLAs, the employer/employee organisations also oftencarry out promotional campaigns to try to encourage people to take up EVC.

Some larger companies (with more than 500 employees) which haveincorporated EVC into their human resource management self-finance its use. ManySMEs are supported in the application of EVC by sectoral training funds; a goodexample is offered the A+O Fonds Gemeenten (training fund for local authority/localgovernment employees). The costs for EVC in the sector vary from EUR 700 to EUR1 500. Part of the cost is tax-deductible for the employer; the fund covers an


additional amount up to EUR 1 000 per employee when EVC is part of a career-guided trajectory, provided that the employee has not been involved in a similartrajectory in the past three years.

The only case in which public funding is allocated to EVC is for the unemployedor those on a low income. It is up to the local authorities and unemploymentorganisations to allocate funding to support these specific target groups to undertakeEVC. If the public employment service (PES) counsellor recommends an EVCprocedure to improve the individual’s chances of getting a job, or their insights intohow to take their career forward, then it is possible to use public funds to pay theEVC fee. But it is relatively rare for this to happen: the focus of the PES is on gettingpeople back to work as quickly as possible.

EVC is currently undergoing a transition phase in the Netherlands. To date,providers have had to be independent of educational institutions, meaning thatpeople could have access to these procedures without having to enrol in aneducation programme, or with the institution. It was thought that this would improveaccessibility, especially for adults who are reluctant to return to formal schoolingand that it would encourage greater provision of EVC (based on the concern thateducational institutes have an interest in selling their programmes and so wouldsteer individuals towards formal education rather than EVC). However, a problemencountered with this approach in the Netherlands was that there were manydifficulties in transferring EVC results to the formal education arena. For instance,exam committees with responsibility for giving credits/making decisions based onRPL were reluctant to do so and would ask to see the individual’s portfolio again orto carry out another assessment. Further, it was found that the certificates ofexperiences awarded through EVC often were not produced to national qualitystandards.

Due to these problems, a new system is being developed which will have tworoutes:• EVC for labour market purposes, i.e. for applying for a job or career development.

This is the existing system but there will also be more promotion of the use ofdifferent types of standards other than educational standards;

• EVC procedures to obtain formal education qualifications. These will take placewithin educational institutions. It is hoped that this will help to create a greaterfocus within the institutions on providing tailor-made learning paths.In the second route, education and training institutions will be able to use the

public funding they receive to provide educational activities to carry out EVC


procedures. It is not mandatory for the institutions to provide EVC but efforts arebeing made to stimulate provision, especially in the HE sector. The aim is toencourage education and training institutions to become lifelong learning institutesand focus more on adult learners than previously. To receive funding for lifelonglearning activities, the institutions have to offer EVC and provide flexible tailor-madelearning paths for adult learners.

Source: Interview with a representative of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

2.4.4. Private sector projectsValidation projects also take place in the private sector. Some examples areidentified across the 2007, 2010 and 2014 inventories and in the Cedefopreport Use of validation by enterprises for human resource and careerdevelopment purposes (Cedefop, 2014), which looks at competenceassessment practices in European companies and includes 20 case studyexamples.

2.4.5. Employer funding of employeesWhere a fee is charged to the individual validation applicant, employers mayprovide support for some or all of the costs. This can lead to a requirement onthe part of the individual to show some level of commitment to the employer,such as remaining in employment with them for a certain time. Countrieswhere employers (sometimes) contribute to the costs incurred by the individualinclude Croatia (for sectoral validation practices), the Czech Republic,Germany (for the external students’ examination), Latvia, Romania andSlovenia (for validation carried out by professional/craftsman associations).

In Croatia, the costs for existing sectoral validation are covered by theindividual. This can be in full, by a one-off payment, or as a loan-payment overseveral months. Sometimes, if the employer is willing to cover the costs of thevalidation (partially or in full), the employee might be asked to sign a bindingcontract which specifies the time the employee is obliged to spend in thecompany (or craft) as a compensation for the ‘investment’. If the employeedecides to leave the company (or craft) before the time-frame has ended,he/she has to return a certain portion of the costs to the employer.

The example below describes an employer in the Netherlands who hasfound that it is more cost-effective to support individuals to undergo validationthan undertake formal training on its own.


Box 2. Rockwool, Netherlands

An example of the cost-effectiveness of EVC can be found in the case of Rockwool, acompany based in the Netherlands which provides insulation solutions. It introduced avalidation process in 2001. After the initial set-up costs, the cost of an individualprocedure has now been calculated at EUR 1 350 per person. As a result of thisprocedure, the individual can acquire a validation certificate, which is recognised byemployers but is not a formal qualification. Rockwool also supports its employees toundergo training. The cost to the company of an individual undertaking training toachieve a formal qualification, equivalent to the level of the validation certificate, hasbeen calculated to be EUR 55 000 (this includes the cost of working hours lost(Rockwool employees are still paid when they attend education) and out-of-pocketcosts. An individual wishing to achieve this qualification, who undertakes validationfirst, can significantly reduce the study load s/he is required to complete, thanks to thevalidation certificate. The company believes that it is more cost-effective to supportindividuals to undergo validation (followed by formal training if necessary, to achieve aformal education qualification) than it is to undertake formal training alone.

Source: Geven (2014). Presentation given to a PLA in Ireland, on Rockwool and interview with J. Geven, Training andeducation partner, Rockwool.

2.4.6. Strengths and weaknessesTable 4 presents strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of the mix ofpublic and private sector funding.



• may be a more sustainable approach, dueto the contributions from the privatesector

• may encourage buy-in from the privatesector to validation


• if validation is delivered outside of theformal education and training sector,there may be issues around acceptance/transferability

• over-reliance on private funding maymean that certain target groups, e.g. theunemployed or people in low-skilled jobs,are not able to access validation

Table 4. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of a mix of publicand private sector funding

Source: Cedefop.

2.5. Fees charged to individual learnersIn over two thirds of inventory countries, individuals are required to pay feesto cover some or all of the costs associated with their validation procedure.Fees were reported in Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Croatia, the Czech Republic(CVET), Denmark (educational institutions can charge a fee for theassessment of prior learning with regard to the RPL programmes coveringHE), England (HE), Finland (CBQs), France, Germany (external students’examination and HE), Hungary (a pilot in HE), Italy (Lombardia region), Latvia,Liechtenstein (vocational education), Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,Greece (VET), Norway, Portugal (HE), Romania, Scotland (HE and vocationalqualifications), Slovakia (planned), Slovenia and Switzerland.

Charges to individuals may be the sole source of funding for the validationor may be used alongside public or other private funding. Fees charged varyconsiderably, which is a consequence of the non-homogeneous nature ofvalidation: the costs incurred can vary greatly, depending on what is involved.Further, the fees charged to the individual will vary depending on theoverarching funding framework; fees may only be required to coveradministrative costs, while the remaining costs are covered by public funding,as is the case in Finland, while in other instances the fees paid by theindividual may be higher because there is no, or limited, public funding in placefor any elements of validation.

Nominal fees to cover, for example, administrative costs, are required fromcandidates in Belgium-Flanders (HE), France, Finland (CBQs), Latvia (VETand HE), Luxembourg (secondary education, Lifelong Learning Centre) andMalta (childcare sector). Some examples are:(a) in France, although no consolidated data on the financial contribution of

candidates are available, it is assumed that they bear only a small orrelatively small part of the costs. The costs depend on the type ofqualification and institution;

(b) in Finland all students are required to pay EUR 58 per CBQ, whether theystudy all courses or only take part in competence tests and thereby havetheir prior learning validated;

(c) in Luxembourg, an administrative fee (stamp duty) of EUR 25 is requiredwhen the application for eligibility is submitted by the candidate as part ofthe procedure managed by the Ministry of National Education (secondary-level education);

(d) in Malta, there is no cost for a validation procedure for the unemployed.For those who are employed, a nominal fee is charged.


2.5.1. Significant feesIn Belgium-Flanders, in the HE sector an administrative fee of EUR 55 ischarged before the initial assessment is conducted. On top of this, the actualfee for the assessment varies according to level and the previous academicachievements of the candidate, as outlined in Box 3.

Box 3. Varying fees: Belgium-Flanders

In Belgium-Flanders, recognition of acquired competences (RAC) is defined by thedecree on making HE more flexible (30 April 2004). The process of recognisingnon-formal and informal learning has been in place in universities and universitycolleges since September 2005. The system is decentralised, with eachassociation in HE elaborating their own rules of procedure (an ‘association’ is anofficial entity regulating the cooperation of a university and one or more universitycolleges). The procedures result in proof of acquired competences (in Dutch,bewijs van bekwaamheid) which can then lead to the appropriateexemptions/shortened study duration and credit certificates and/or proof ofqualification. RAC in this sector can be used to pursue education or forprofessional aims. For the latter, however, the institutions cannot guaranteeacceptance by employers of the proof of competences.

Fees for RAC in HE depend on the level of the qualification and priorqualifications of the candidate, as outlined below with the maximum cost forassessment at each level:• EUR 590 for a proficiency assessment at academic or professional bachelor

level;• EUR 770 for a proficiency assessment at master level if the individual has no

bachelor degree;• EUR 230 for a proficiency assessment at master level if the individual has a

bachelor degree;• EUR 55 administrative cost for a proficiency assessment for partial elements of

study costs (depending on the number of competence assessments to beundertaken).The average price for the individual per association is as follows (without the

administrative cost of EUR 55) (a):• KU Leuven Association: EUR 122;• Ghent University Association: EUR 155;• Antwerp University Association: EUR 256;• Brussels University Association: EUR 155.


The 2010 inventory country report for Belgium-Flanders suggested that mostinstitutions do not see a real immediate economic return on RAC. The 2014update suggested that this was still the case, although to a lesser extent. Forexample, in HE, granting exemptions to an applicant means that institutions losemoney because the recognition process does not generate revised income,requires heavy investment and exemptions might result in payment of a loweradmission fee. However, part of the latest developments in the HE sector arefocused on increasing the cost-benefit ratio both for institutions and candidatesby looking at ways in which, instead of screening a full profile, focus is placed onclusters of competences. It is hoped that this will also attract more people toparticipate RAC.

Procedures and practices in HE have generally improved in recent years andproviders are now better at tailoring RAC to the profile of candidates, making theoverall process more efficient. Guidance practitioners are also now more focusedon the first steps, i.e. advising potential candidates and helping them estimatetheir chances of succeeding in the RAC. To this end, a ‘quick scan’ instrument isbeing used by some of the associations during the first phase. This helps theguidance practitioner, based on the CV and work experience, to determine if it isworth starting the procedure. This will lead, in time, to the system being lessexpensive and more tailor-made.

It is generally agreed that if RAC leads to a shortened education pathwaythen it is worth the investment; practice shows that this is easier to achieve forindividuals who have substantial professional experience.

(a) These figures have remained the same since 2007.Source: European Commission et al., 2010; 2014a.

Slovenia also has varying fees for validation depending on the type ofqualification. The resolution on administrative fees sets a maximum amountof EUR 50, with various different fees for the different recognition procedures.Further, full application costs for recognition may vary according to individualeducation institutions’ price lists.

Other countries with more significant fees include the Czech Republic,Italy, Germany, Latvia and Switzerland. In Italy, Lombardia candidates arerequired to contribute to validation and certification services (around EUR600), but only if they need tutorship in building up the portfolio and do notbelong to a disadvantaged group. In Germany, the eligibility check for theexternal students’ examination (checking if a candidate has sufficient (work)


experience or evidence to undertake the examination) is mostly free of chargefor the applicant but some authorities charge for this process. Costs arise fromexamination fees, preparatory courses and travel expenses. Actual participantcosts vary from EUR 1 871 to EUR 4 461 (Schreiber, et al, 2012) dependingon costs for course fees, admission fees, examination fees, travelling andaccommodation. In Switzerland, the cost is around CHF 1 000 (around EUR820) per person for HE qualifications (tertiary A), while for professionaleducation and training (PET) diplomas the cost varies depending on thequalification. For example the cost for validation of each module of the SwissFederation for Adult Learning FSEA/SVEB delivering the (advanced) federalPET diploma for trainers in adult education (tertiary B) through validationassessment is CHF 500 (around EUR 410) (12). This price is effective sinceMarch 2013 and does not cover the complete costs of the procedure, whichare also funded through federal contributions.

Experience from the Czech Republic suggests that a fee-based systemmay not affect demand from individuals. Validation is funded through feescharged to the individual participant. The authorised persons/bodies whichcarry out assessment of non-formal and informal learning in VET (these canbe schools, private institutions, companies as well as persons (a craftsmancan become an authorised person)) also set the fee; this varies depending onthe qualification and material needed for the assessment. The fee can go upto several hundred euros. It is suggested that the take-up figures (in just fouryears 87 000 assessments were carried out) show that the fees individualsare required to pay are not a major obstacle for system development.

2.5.2. Regulations/guidelines on feesSeveral countries now have national regulations/guidelines on fees that canbe charged to individuals. This includes Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia.

In Latvia, a regulation defines the fees that can be charged for validationin the VET sector, while HE fees are defined according to the regulations ofthe HE institute itself (for independent institutions) or the price list of paidservices set out by the Cabinet of Ministers (for State-funded institutions), asexplained in Box 4.

In the Czech Republic, a nationally defined price range was introduced toensure that there were no unreasonable differences in fees charged. However,it proved difficult to implement the system in practice, with prices ranging from


(12) Swiss Federation for Adult Learning: Règlement tarifaire pour la procedure VA, niveaux 1-3 [tariffregulation procedure for the VA, levels 1-3]:http://www.alice.ch/fr/ada/validation-des-acquis-va/reglement-tarifaire-va/ [accessed 2.3.2016].

zero to several thousand CZK (Czech crowns). Consequently, the 2011 reviewof the legislation abandoned the use of such scales. The Netherlands alsohas no limits set at national level for fees charged for EVC.

Box 4. Regulations setting the fees for validation: Latvia

In Latvia, according to the 2009 regulation on ‘Increasing the attractiveness ofvocational education and involvement of social partners in quality assurance ofvocational education’, funding allocated for the preparation and maintenance of thenon-formal learning validation system is LVL 5 019 467 (EUR 7 142 098) annually,including State joint funding LVL 752 920 (EUR 1 071 315) (the rest coming fromthe ESF). The same regulation foresees that the procedures of validating non-formaleducation are payable by the candidate. The validation costs of the first 80candidates were covered by the funds aimed at establishing more attractivevocational education.

The 2013 regulation ‘price-list of paid services of vocational educationinstitutions and examination centres’ defines the price for conducting validation.This differs according to the thematic field of education and the group ofprogrammes. Similar to the tuition fees for formal studies, fields of education suchas health care and engineering are more expensive for validation than others. Theprice requested for validation also differs depending on how many pass thequalification examination. The cheapest per capita price is for a group of 12 people(this is also the amount requested as a fee where the candidate for validation passesthe qualification examination together with other students at the education institutionor examination centre). In 2014, the cheapest per capita price ranged from EUR 43in ‘commercial sciences and administration’ to as much as EUR 700 in ‘engineeringand technologies’.

In the HE sector, the 2012 regulation ‘procedure of validating the learningoutcomes achieved through prior education or professional experience’ stipulatesthat a fee can be requested from the candidate for validation of prior learning. Thefee is defined according to the regulations of the HE institution or college, or theprice-list of paid services defined by the Cabinet of Ministers, where it is a State-funded college or HE institute.

Source: European Commission et al., 2014b.

As mentioned in case study 4: the Netherlands, (Section 2.4.3), withoutnational regulations/guidelines on the fees that can be charged, there can beconsiderable variation across a country. This may present an advantage to


learners if they are able to ‘shop around’ but if this is not the case (if they arelimited to providers within their locality due to travel limitations) it is more of adisadvantage.

In England, charges made by HE institutes for guidance offered as part ofa validation process were found to vary considerably, even within a singleorganisation, as discussed in Box 5.

Box 5. Variations in fees for individuals: England (HE sector)

In the English HE sector, institutions have the autonomy to decide how much tocharge for an RPL/AP(E)L procedure. The quality code of the Quality AssuranceAgency states only that there should be clear information on how much they charge.Research carried out for the 2010 country update found that the element of thevalidation process which is charged for can vary, as well as the amount charged.Some HE institutes set charges according to the number of credits appliedfor/awarded, while others charged per hours of advice and guidance received.Nevertheless, at that time the cost of AP(E)L was generally lower than taking acourse in full (costs for HE tend to be rather standardised, within government-setmaximum level of fees), plus the individual saves on time by not having to repeatlearning already achieved, which is an indirect cost saving.

According to the SEEC AP(E)L network (SEEC AP(E)L network, 2012), chargesfor guidance to support individuals wishing to undertake an APEL process varyconsiderably, even within organisations. It seems that APEL has been used by someinstitutions as a ‘loss leader’ (no charges for guidance or assessment) for studentsseeking access to specific programmes, usually at postgraduate level. However, insome organisations within the SEEC AP(E)L network this was being reviewed, andseveral organisations anticipated that charges would be introduced for some, or all,programmes. Some institutions were reviewing their current arrangements forcharges, looking at the different stages involved in an APEL process, for exampleadvising on potential, advising on putting together a portfolio, and assessing aportfolio. SEEC provides examples of charges for different types of guidanceprovision relating to the RPL process. The examples demonstrate how much costsvary across institutions: while one institution did not charge at all for tutorial timeassociated with the RPL process (which is implemented as a ‘loss leader’), anothercharged GBP 640 (EUR 750) regardless of the number of academic creditsclaimed/awarded.

Source: European Commission et al., 2014c.


HE institutions in Portugal also have the autonomy to determine their ownvalidation procedures and fees. There are institutions where candidates paya fixed amount plus a variable amount, depending on the number of creditsawarded (such as the Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal) and others wherecandidates pay for the process as a whole (University of Lisbon), regardlessof the number of credits claimed by the students.

2.5.3. Strengths and weaknessesTable 5 presents some strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of feescharged to individual learners.

Table 5. Strengths/enablers and barriers/weaknesses of fees chargedto individual learners



• may make providers more willing to offervalidation, as it can be a source ofincome, or at least the costs are coveredby the fee

• fees can be determined in relation to thevarying costs associated with differenttypes of validation

• without national regulations/guidelines,fees may vary across a country, enablinglearners to ‘shop around’


• can be complicated to determine the feeto charge – validation is not ahomogeneous process

• fees may be a barrier to participation forlow-income groups

• fees are likely to put off learners ifparticipation in education is free

• without national regulations/guidelines,fees may vary across a country, whichmay be a problem if learners do not havethe mobility to ‘shop around’

Source: Cedefop.

CHAPTER 3

Changes in funding 2007-14

It is difficult to analyse trends over 2007-14/15 due to the scarcity ofinformation in this area, in particular in the earlier years. In 2007, validationwas still in its infancy in many countries and funding was provided fordevelopment or small-scale activities. Changes in the funding situationdocumented by the inventory took place primarily between 2010 and 2014.These are discussed briefly below.

There was no change in the funding arrangements in Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Liechtenstein,Romania, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and Germany. InDenmark, in 2008 it was decided that within general adult education, validationof prior learning (regardless of where it was acquired) in terms of issuing acompetence certificate would not incur user fees but use taximeter funding,i.e. activity-level-determined grants which are paid to the learning institutions.There has been no change.

New initiatives have been introduced or new developments relating to thefunding of validation reported during this timeframe in Bulgaria, England,Iceland, Malta, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. These arelisted below:(a) in Bulgaria, a new regulation came into force in January 2015, which

states that validation procedures can be funded by natural persons, legalpersons, programmes and projects financed by national and regionalfunds, EU structural funds or funds from the European Economic Area.Though the regulation stipulates that there may be different sources offunding, it does not regulate funding, i.e. it does not introduce any specificbudget for validation;

(b) funding for validation was increased over the period in Iceland (case study1 in Section 2.1.2);

(c) in Malta, a validation system had not been established at the time ofwriting the 2010 country report. By 2014 there was no specific funding forvalidation but there was funding for development work such as creatingstandards and government funding for validation for the unemployed;

(d) in England, from 2009 the Learning and Skills Council introduced new

funding arrangements, explicitly aligned to the qualifications and creditframework (Box 1);

(e) the Latvian validation system was in its development phase in 2010. Inthe draft Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers on the validation processof competence acquired through non-formal and informal learning it wasplanned that candidates would have to cover the costs of validation ofnon-formal learning. By 2013, there was a regulation giving a price-list ofpaid services of vocational education institutions and examination centres;

(f) in Portugal (case study 2 in Section 2.3.1) above, a national call forproposals was held between June and September 2015, through whichcentres for qualification and VET (CQEP) (both public and private) ineligible regions could apply for ESF funding to deliver RVCC;

(g) in Slovenia, in 2010 a new act on validation and recognition of knowledgewas adopted, also regulating nationally administrative costs of validationand recognition procedures;

(h) in Spain, the government made a commitment to fund a new validationprocess for professional experience in 2009. The funding covered theproduction and updating of materials, training of guidance practitionersand assessors, and direct funding for candidates. In 2013, the governmentapproved a budget of EUR 5 605 000 for the recognition and accreditationof skills acquired through work experience. The main source of financingis the ESF;

(i) in Switzerland, thanks to the OPET’s national ‘validation project’, from2010, national validation guidelines were established in IVET. Theseguidelines also set directives regarding the financing of validationpractices, with public funding made available for people who do not havea first VET qualification (Section 2.1.1.2).A reduction in funding between 2010 and 2014 was identified in Sweden

and Portugal, while in Estonia (case study 3 in Section 2.3.4), Ireland and theNetherlands, temporary funding measures ended during this timeframe. InIreland, project funding provided via the strategic innovation fund and othersources to support RPL-related projects no longer seemed to be in use in2014. In the Netherlands, a temporary measure was taken by the governmentbecause of the economic crisis (case study 4 in Section 2.4.3).

The data provided by the country experts suggest that, since 2007, morecountries have experienced increase in attention, increase in funding, or newinitiatives relating to funding validation, than have experienced reduction infunding.

CHAPTER 3Changes in funding 2007-14 55

CHAPTER 4

Conclusions

4.1. Main conclusionsThe following key learning points can be identified:(a) there is limited information on the topic of validation funding, as few

countries tend to have earmarked funding for it, while collectinginformation on its cost is complicated due to fragmented structures;

(b) countries use various funding sources to support validation and these mayvary within the country, as each sector of learning may use a differentfunding source;

(c) in some countries funding is only provided for certain stages of thevalidation process, but this may be a disincentive to providers;

(d) in Iceland and the Netherlands, responsibility for validation has beenallocated to providers outside formal education. This offers benefits interms of accessibility for learners and buy-in from the providers, but in theNetherlands has been found to cause problems in transferring theoutcomes of validation to formal education;

(e) (European) project funding or other time-bound funding provides animportant ‘start-up’ source to enable new developments to be introduced.It can help to ensure that validation is focused on results and is responsiveto demand but can also create uncertainty and questions aroundsustainability;

(f) where funding for validation comes from providers’ existing budgets,validation opportunities may be better integrated into formal educationand training. However, without funding to act as a driver to incentiviseproviders to deliver validation, the shift in attitudes and perceptions whichcan be required for validation to be fully accepted in formal education maybe slow to take place or may not happen at all;

(g) in some countries there is a perception among providers that validation isan expensive, time-consuming process, which may also act as a barrierto wider delivery, if they are not given dedicated funding for it;

(h) EU funding, notably the ESF, is used to support (mainstream) validationinitiatives in some countries. ESF support can provide an opportunity toinvest in the development of policies, practices and tools and can help to

promote quality and consistency. In some countries it is also used to fundvalidation delivery and so can help to increase the user base. However,there can be an issue around sustainability of projects and initiativesfinanced through the ESF and other EU funds;

(i) individuals cover some or all of the costs of a validation procedure inmany countries. While this represents a potentially sustainable model offunding and ensures that validation provision is driven by demand, itraises issues around barriers to access: in countries where access toeducation is free, charging a fee for validation is likely to put somelearners off undertaking it.

4.2. RecommendationsThe following recommendation can be identified:(a) there is scope to look into the issue of validation funding in more detail. A

review of funding by sector within each country could lead to a moreprecise typology of models and more in-depth discussion of theassociated issues;

(b) more in-depth case studies, profiling countries’ experiences, and/or moreevaluative research into the impact of funding models in place on the buy-in/take-up among providers and learners, as well as the quality ofprovision, would be beneficial;

(c) collection of more systematic information about validation funding isneeded. More effort could be made by countries to calculate the costassociated with validation practice. This will allow for better understandingof its cost and benefits. It is important that both economic and socialbenefits be considered;

(d) where funding for validation is allocated proportionally, perlearner/qualification/credit, clear information about funding arrangementsis needed so that providers and users understand what they are entitledto. This is especially important where validation is delivered by educationand training providers, who may show some reluctance to offer validationopportunities in place of formal learning;

(e) project-based funding can serve as a springboard, but it is important toensure that the model’s sustainability is considered from the outset;

(f) more needs to be done to explore the link between validation funding andother active labour market policies, especially its link to guidance andpublic employment services;

CHAPTER 4Conclusions 57

(g) further investigation needs to be carried out to understand better how thefunding models affect the low-qualified and the unemployed as a routeback into education, as these groups might be more reluctant to pay feesassociated with validation services. Differentiated approaches might beneeded depending on the user profile and/or the type of qualificationaimed for.


List of abbreviations

APEL accreditation of prior experience and learningCBQ competence-based qualificationsCHF Swiss francCLA collective labour agreementsCQEP Centros para a qualificação e o ensino profissional

centres for qualification and vocational educationCVET continuing vocational education and trainingCZK Czech crownsESF European Social FundETF Education and Training FundETSC education and training service centreEoppep National Organisation for the Certification of Qualifications

and Vocational Guidance (Greece)EVC erkenning van verworven competenties

validation of prior learningGBP UK pound sterlingHE higher educationHEFCW Higher Education Funding Council for WalesHRDA Human Resource Development Authority (Cyprus)IVET initial vocational education and trainingLVL Latvian latsNIACE National Institute for Adult Continuing Education

(England and Wales)PES public employment serviceRAC recognition of acquired competencesRPL recognition of prior learningRVCC Reconhecimento, Validação e Certificação de

Competências recognition, validation and certification of competencesSEK Swedish kronaVAE validation of acquired experienceVET vocational education and training

References

This report is based on data provided by the European inventory countryexperts in relation to a series of questions on funding validation. Responseswere based on information provided in previous versions of the inventory(2007, 2010 and 2014), their wider knowledge of validation in their country,and relevant literature they were aware of and had access to. A few telephoneinterviews were also carried out by the author to prepare the detailed countryexamples. These were with national stakeholders in Estonia, Iceland, theNetherlands, and Portugal.

Other sources cited in this document are listed below:

Cedefop (2014). Use of validation by enterprises for human resource andcareer development purposes. Luxembourg: Publications Office.Reference series; No 96. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/3065

Council of the European Union (2012). Council recommendation of 20December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning.Official Journal of the European Union, C 398, 22.12.2012, pp. 1-5.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF

ETSC (2014). Information on VPL funding/cost benefits in Iceland. ETSC,Education and Training Service Centre.

European Commission et al. (2010). European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning 2010: country report: Belgium (Flanders).http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2011/77449.pdf

European Commission et al. (2014a). European inventory on validation ofnon-formal and informal learning 2014: country report Belgium (NL).http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2014/87049_BE_NL.pdf

European Commission et al. (2014b). European inventory on validation ofnon-formal and informal learning 2014: country report Latvia.http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2014/87068_LV.pdf

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/3065

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF

European Commission et al. (2014c). European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning 2014: country report UK (England andNorthern Ireland).http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2014/87079_UK_EN_NI.pdf

Geven, J. (2014). Rockwool. Paper presented at the peer learning activity Thewriting of learning outcomes for assessment and validation, Cork, Ireland,19 and 20 November 2014.

HEFCW (2010). Funding the accreditation of prior experiential learning(APEL). Cardiff: Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Circular,No W10/42HE of 13 December.http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/publications/circulars/circulars_2010/W10%2042HE%20Funding%20the%20accreditation%20of%20prior%20experimental%20learning%20APEL.pdf

Leushuis, P. (2014). The quality code on validation of prior learning in theNetherlands: past, present and near future. In: Duvekot, R. et al. (eds).Linkages of VPL: validation of prior learning as a multitargeted approachfor maximising learning opportunities for all. Vught: European Centre forValuation of Prior Learning. http://www.vplbiennale.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Linkages_of_VPL_2-Celeo.pdf

NIACE (2013). Using the recognition of prior learning (RPL) within thequalifications and credit framework (QCF): a report to the Skills FundingAgency. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.http://www.eqf-pin.eu/system/files/opendownload-files/niace_rpl_report_v0_2_formatted.pdf

Schreiber, D. et al. (2012). Anerkennung beruflicher Kompetenzen am Beispielder Zulassung zur Abschlussprüfung im Rahmen der Externenregelung:Abschlussbericht [Recognition of professional competence by theexample of the admission to the final examination in the context of externalcontrol: final report]. Bonn: BIBB.https://www2.bibb.de/tools/fodb/pdf/eb_43301.pdf

SEEC AP(E)L Network Group (2012). Overview of strategies relating toprovision of guidance for accreditation of prior experiential learning(APEL), and charges which may be made: June 2012.

Stoel, D.; Wenztel, E. (2011). Beloften, feiten en ongekende mogelijkheden:onderzoek naar de effecten van EVC [Promises, facts and unprecedentedopportunities: research on the effects of VPL]. Amsterdam: ProfitWise.

References 61

http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/publications/circulars/circulars_2010/W10%2042HE%20Funding%20the%20accreditation%20of%20prior%20experimental%20learning%20APEL.pdf

http://www.vplbiennale.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Linkages_of_VPL_2-Celeo.pdf

http://www.eqf-pin.eu/system/files/opendownload-files/niace_rpl_report_v0_2_formatted.pdf

Web linksCedefop: Validation of non-formal and informal learning:


European Commission, EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture ExecutiveAgency: Key action 3, initiatives for policy innovation: European policyexperimentation, EACEA 34/2015:https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/key-action-3-initiatives-for-policy-innovation-european-policy-experimentation-eacea-342015_en

Swiss Federation for Adult Learning: Règlement tarifaire pour la procedureVA, niveaux 1-3 [tariff regulation procedure for the VA, levels 1-3]:http://www.alice.ch/fr/ada/validation-des-acquis-va/reglement-tarifaire-va/



https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/key-action-3-initiatives-for-policy-innovation-european-policy-experimentation-eacea-342015_en

ANNEX

Overview of funding sources

The following table gives an overview of the funding sources for validation,based on the data provided by the country experts. It is worth repeating thatthere is some overlap across the funding sources: they are not mutuallyexclusive. For instance, countries which provide (dedicated) national fundingmay also rely on European funding as a significant funding source, as whenEuropean and national funding are combined in the case of the ESF. TableA1 may not serve as an exhaustive list of all countries within each category:since country experts were not asked in the first instance to present theirinformation according to these subheadings, these were developed from thedata for this report.

Table A1 is followed by a summary of key learning points from the report.

Table A1. Funding sources for validation

Funding source

Countries withdedicated publicfunding for validation,from national/regionalsources (sometimescombined with EUsources)

Countries with publicfunding but notspecifically allocatedto validation

Countries (and sectors, where information given)

Czech Republic, Denmark, England (IVET), Iceland, Latvia,Liechtenstein (VET), Luxembourg (IVET), Malta, Norway (lower andupper secondary education) Portugal (general education and VET),Sweden and Switzerland (upper secondary VET), Wales (HE).

Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia, France, Germany and Italyreferred to using regional public funding.

Austria, Belgium-Flanders (HE), England (HE), Estonia (HE andVET), Finland (VET: CBQs and HE), France, Germany (externalexamination, HE), Hungary (adult learning and HE), Norway (uppersecondary education; for adults), IVET, CVET and HE), Poland (VETand HE), Scotland, Sweden (general education, IVET, adulteducation and HE), Switzerland (all sectors except for uppersecondary VET) and Wales (IVET).


Funding source

EU funding for‘mainstream’validation

Project funding (from various sources)

Countries with a mixof public and privatesector funding

Fees charged toindividual learners

Employers cover theiremployees’ fees

Countries (and sectors, where information given)

Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia (HE), Bulgaria, Cyprus (VET),the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy,Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

It is acknowledged that most countries are likely to have project-based activities of some sort. The countries listed belowspecifically referred to projects in the data provided for this report.

Austria, Belgium-Wallonia (HE), Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark,England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland (VET,adult education and HE), Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta,Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland,Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland.

Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spainand Sweden.

Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Croatia, Cyprus (ICT certificates), theCzech Republic (CVET), Denmark (educational institutions cancharge a fee for the assessment of prior learning with regard tothe RPL-programmes covering HE), England (HE), Finland (CBQs),France, Germany (external students’ examination and HE), Greece(VET), Hungary (a pilot in HE), Italy (Lombardia region), Latvia,Liechtenstein (vocational education), Luxembourg (secondaryeducation, Lifelong Learning Centre), Malta, the Netherlands,Portugal (HE), Romania, Scotland (HE and vocationalqualifications), Slovakia (planned), Slovenia and Switzerland.

Croatia (for sectoral validation practices), the Czech Republic,Germany (for the external students’ examination), Latvia, Romaniaand Slovenia (for validation carried out by professional/craftsmanassociations).

Source: ICF, on the basis of the country experts’ responses to the thematic topic questions.

OF NON-FORMALAND INFORMAL LEARNING

VALIDATION

Funding validation

A thematic report for the 2016 updateto the European inventory on validationof non-formal and informal learning

This thematic report presents an overview of funding sources for validation of non-formal and informal learning and discusses associated issues such as sustainability and accessibility. It is based on data collected for the European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning since 2007, and telephone interviews carried out to prepare four detailed case-study examples. The report identifies five different funding sources used by countries across Europe: dedicated public funding from national sources; public funding but not specifically allocated to validation; EU and project funding; mix of public and private sector funding; and fees charged to individual learners. For each of these, it sets out a list of strengths/enablers and barriers/weak-nesses. The report concludes with a list of key learning points and suggests that there is scope to look into the issue of valida-tion funding in more detail.


ENEN

Europe 123, 570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea), GREECE

PO Box 22427, 551 02 Thessaloniki, GREECE

Tel. +30 2310490111, Fax +30 2310490020, E-mail: [email protected]

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

4146 EN – TI-01-16-652-EN-N – doi:10.2801/012471

ISBN: 978-92-896-2198-4

funding validation. a thematic report for the 2016 …luxembourg: publications office of the...

Documents